The Fairness Doctrine, the law that effectively put the kibosh on political talk radio for a number of years, might be coming back if congressional Democrats have their way. According to Fred Thompson, this turn of events was prompted in part by the failure of Air America radio:
The real issue here is not what you “can” see or hear — which is what the Fairness Doctrine was about originally. It’s what you’re “choosing” to see or hear.
Insiders say it was the collapse of the radio station “Air America” that led to this attempt to retool the Fairness Doctrine as a form of de facto censorship. I guess the idea is that, if you can’t compete in the world of ideas, you pass a law that forces radio stations to air your views. In effect, it would force a lot of radio stations to drop some talk show hosts — because they would lose money providing equal airtime to people who can’t attract a market or advertisers.
The funny thing is that the success of the current crop of radio talk show hosts is due, in part, to a lot of people’s perception that broadcast television doesn’t give the views of their audience a fair shake. Maybe I shouldn’t admit it, since I dabble in radio myself, but this media used to be viewed as a kind of broadcast ghetto. The bicoastal elite had such a grip on the major newspapers and television networks; they pretty much ignored the hinterlands. It was media flyover country.
Now congressional leaders say they want to “level the playing field” there too — meaning they want to diminish the importance of conservative talk radio. In other words, they don’t trust the results of freedom and the marketplace. Why am I not surprised?
—Matthew Sheffield is the creator of NewsBusters and its Executive Editor.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
I said it once and I'll say
May 20, 2007 - 03:58 ET by mlongI said it once and I'll say it again..if the Dems bring back the so-called Fairness Doctrine to silence Conservative radio it won't be too long after that that'll they'll try to create an "Internet Fairness Doctrine" to control or get rid of sites like this....hell Hillary has already said things in the past about there needing to be more control over the internet allready so it's not far fetched or right-wing paranoia it's coming from the Dems own lips.
Probably. The liberal solu
May 20, 2007 - 07:00 ET by motherbeltProbably. The liberal solution to disagreement it to shut it down BAMN.
Quoted who
May 20, 2007 - 12:42 ET by NortoBeliever
Who is the Fred Thompson quoted? The next POTUS, maybe? Hopefully!
On the other hand, the Fairne
May 20, 2007 - 04:49 ET by GalvanicOn the other hand, the Fairness Doctrine can cut both ways. PBS will be forced to balance Bill Moyers and other programs with vocies from the Right.
TV networks, too, will come under scrutiny and have to make time for conservative perspectives.
Liberals stand to gain a wh
May 20, 2007 - 06:47 ET by motherbeltLiberals stand to gain a whole lot more from that type of legislation than conservatives. It is no big deal for PBS to throw in a couple of conservative-leaning commentators or programs. However, when local radio stations have to run three hours of liberal talk radio to "balance" Rush Limbaugh, and lose money and advertisers doing so (or can't come up with enough counter-programming), their easiest solution is to dump the talk format and Limbaugh, and play country music instead. (Liberal) problem solved.
TV stations, on the other hand, feel free to call their biases "news" or "news analysis" rather than opinion, and they will be allowed to continue doing so.
Don't Count on It
May 20, 2007 - 08:57 ET by allanfDon't count on PBS's Bill Moyers or the TV News Networks coming under the "Fairness Doctrine". That programming will be classified as "objective news" under the doctrine. Only opinion shows, such as Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity etc will come under the doctrine.
It is unlikely given the four solid conservatives on the court, that a law aimed at restricting conservative speech will survie a court challenge.
Fairness Doctrine
May 21, 2007 - 12:39 ET by SportPoliticsYeah, the counterbalance for Rush Limbaugh will be Alex Jones and the video " Loose Change" - while Al Gore's global warming show and the Palestinian resistance will be considered mainstream.
Hate Bush will be mainstream - they will claim polls prove it - democrats will be given mainstream they are "in the majority" - and " overwhelmingly the American people have spoken" will be the line.
Anything republican or conservative will be a throwback to the blackest specimens from the wilds ( HT/ Grand Wizard Sen. Byrd ).
LOL- Get ready for free airtime for Moulitsas - your daily dose of Dan Rather's favorite blog where the world is happening DailyKOS radio...
Don't forget that Al Jazeera will be given free time too, and all those great 527c's except those "liars" the Swiftvets.
Oh, whoopee! More time for
May 20, 2007 - 09:14 ET by bretzysdudeOh, whoopee! More time for perspective from the wimpy Elizabeth Hasselbeck.
Cutting both ways may be tr
May 20, 2007 - 11:18 ET by GregECutting both ways may be true. There are many things that could be "evened out" if forced to do so by big daddy nanny government.
The issue is the government forcing it, period. Whether it evens it out or not is not the issue at all. Government needs to get its freakin nose, hands, feet, mouth, etc out of as many places as possible, but instead it thinks it's nose, hands, feet, mouths, etc belong in as many places as possible. They're wrong.
And then what "committee" in government would be charged with establishing what is "allowed" to be said that would require balance? Good grief!!
Sorry -- the door only swings one way
May 20, 2007 - 12:03 ET by w0tmWish it were so! Reading the Fairness Doctrine law, even as it existed in 1988 ignoring what the Liberals would do to it today, congress sets up an "unbiased" committee to decide whether a TV or radio show is political and, if so, if it is does or does not contain enough from both sides to be considered its own equal time. With an extra paragraph, The Fairness Doctrine could easily be extended to the Internet. What type of "unbiased" citizens would today's Liberal Party (sorry, to me, the Democratic Party died in 1972) appoint to such a committee? I can think of hundreds of people who would be eager to serve and they all have media experience. Michael Moore, Walter Cronkite, Mike Wallace, Barbra Streisand and, and, and. They'd have an almost unlimited pool of "unbiased, fair and balanced" people to choose from. By a "work around" that Nancy Pelosi quietly set in motion last week (do NOT expect the media to cover it!), the law can be brought back without President Bush's signature. So we are not protected by his veto power. He can only veto new laws. Not ones declared by the house and senate as having never been taken out of law in the first place. A fine point of law but she can and will do it. She is not waiting for President Hillary. It will be sent to the Supreme Court but that will take years and Talk Radio and virtually all dissent will be permanently silenced in the meantime. By then they assume they'll have their own president. So this change is not coming in 2009 but could happen within months. You have to read the Congressional Record to learn of this. It will remain under the radar until the day they set up the committee and they tell the already decided upon conservative talk shows to either shut down or provide equal time.
The political tone of each program will be judgmental by this committee appointed by congress. To a Michael Moore-type, PBS would not be "fair". It would be too conservative. They would have to allow time for A.N.S.W.E.R. and other such groups.
There is an "end-run" coming and it is almost upon us. And no one has a clue (other than Nancy Pelosi, the Clintons and others like them). We will have every bit as much censorship as China does today and it will happen with breathtaking speed. Next will come deeming most anything political said by a conservative as "hate speech". Some of the "hate" laws already on the books can easily be applied to politics. That means jail for those who exercise their First Amendment Rights. The first nail in the coffin of Free Speech was McCain-Feingold. This will be the last nail before our First Amendment is buried. Once lost, it is gone for good.
The crazy rhetoric we laugh at as the rant of lunatics we read on DailyKOS and the like will become reality. We will continue to fool ourselves by saying "it can't happen here". They said that in Germany in the 20's and in other civilizations throughout history. "the Roman Empire is Eternal". No, it is dust. As we will be unless things change very soon.
**********************************
Galvanic is hitting the targe
May 20, 2007 - 16:34 ET by Duke WayneGalvanic is hitting the target here. The old saying, careful what you wish for as it may come true applies. Most reporters today could well come under scruitny should the FD come back. Then, networks will face a barrage of equal time requests to get the story straight - no more of the Danny Boy, Am I On the Air, Rather stunts. Having managed a radio station during the FD era, I can attest to the fact that requests come from all quarters - legitimate and cranks. In some respects, I hate to see the FD return. But, on the other hand, maybe we need a short stint under the FD Rule to shock the MSM bias back toward the center and more balanced reporting.
That's what I was thinking,
May 20, 2007 - 19:56 ET by GalvanicThat's what I was thinking, Duke. Rather is a good example. What if CBS had to broadcast a rebuttal to the infamous Texas Air National Guard memos? Everytime Rather attempted to defend his story, they would have to air the rebuttal. Inessence, CBS would have to participate in the exposure of its own bias.
Are we better without the Fairness Doctrine? Maybe. But if it is imposed on the media, use it to our advantage. Far more MSM outlets are going to be affected than talk radio programs.
So Called Fairness Doctrine
May 20, 2007 - 17:40 ET by theknight70Yo, Glavanic
The MSM will be exempt from the fairness doctrine, including PBS. NPR and PBS will be the gold standard for the libs. You think the libs are going to allow bill moyers to be shut down? Are you kidding??? He's their knight in shining armour! NBC, CBS, MSNBC, CNBC and ABC will be the only networks exempt. I doubt that FOX will exempt. The libs will find a loophole for FOX to be included. Clear Channel and the Salem Radio network are the prime targets of the libs. There is another radio network out there whose name escapes me. But they are also targeted.
The Anti 1st amendment doctrine will throw thousands if not tens of thousands of communications specialists and techies out of jobs. A lot of small start up companies will go out of business because the stations that are left will have advertising rates too high for the small company budgets. It will be a disaster and it will affect this roaring economy.
The Dems and Libs always scream censorship at the first perceived slight, yet when they start losing arguments, instead of wanting to come back and fight another day, they want to shut the conversation dowm!
I will not have it!!!
Bring it on libs! Bring it on dumbocrats!
Hopefully our side will be able to bring on a mass class action lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the anti 1st amendment doctring.
I don't see the networks bein
May 20, 2007 - 20:01 ET by GalvanicI don't see the networks being exempt. FOX NEWS and MSNBC may be exempt since they are cable and not using the public's airwaves.
And if there's a challenge to the application of the Fairness Doctrine, nows the time to get it on the books while the court is leaning conservatively.
And I have a bridge for sale
May 20, 2007 - 05:15 ET by Tony LockardAnd I have a bridge for sale in Brooklyn, for anyone who believes the 'fairness' doctrine would be applied equally between conservative and liberal broadcast stations.
"...meaning they want
May 20, 2007 - 06:32 ET by sarcasmo"...meaning they want to diminish the importance of conservative talk
radio. In other words, they don’t trust the results of freedom and the
marketplace. Why am I not surprised?"
Because it's exactly the same thing conservatives tried to do with vague FCC "decency" rules & Howard Stern's radio show, making attempts at censorship using my tax dollars typical political behavior no matter what the political party? Just my guess....
JMR
Because it's exactly the s
May 20, 2007 - 06:54 ET by motherbeltBecause it's exactly the same thing conservatives tried to do with vague FCC "decency" rules & Howard Stern's radio show, - sarcasmo
I disagree. The "decency" rules apply across the board. It's not a matter of "balance", as the fairness doctrine would be.
No, they don't. They sure a
May 20, 2007 - 07:00 ET by sarcasmoNo, they don't. They sure as hell didn't apply to Oprah's "Rainbow party" terminology, for example. This was political censorship WITHOUT hard and fast rules on what one can and can't say, it's all depending on WHO one is what one can say under this system, so you can try to defend it intellectually if you like, but the impication that FCC rules apply equally to everyone in media across the board won't wash.
JMR
They sure as hell didn't a
May 20, 2007 - 07:05 ET by motherbeltThey sure as hell didn't apply to Oprah's "Rainbow party" terminology, for example.
Not familiar with that, so I can't argue it. You may be right. But in "decency" rulings, no one is being required to carry something specific that they don't want to, at least not that I'm aware of.
So it's censorship instead
May 20, 2007 - 07:16 ET by sarcasmoSo it's censorship instead of forced-speech. To me they're the same thing, all the taxes I pay for forced speech promoting stupid policies is money I can't use to fight those same policies & try to shrink government for once. Not only was Oprah able to get away with that speech on TV in the afternoon when kids were home, Howard (when kids were at school) was forced by CBS lawyers NOT to play clips of that Oprah show, so on his show the EXACT SAME MATERIAL was censored via chilling effects. In the mean time, CBS settled a lawsuit despite blatant misrepresentations by the FCC side, which never bothered to verify that this product is "real" & exists in the free marketplace, despite falsely swearing in court papers (financed by my taxes) that it didn't exist. The FCC is what should not exist, if you ask me. I'm tired of my taxes paying for the political agendas of the left and right, whether it's via the FCC or the "Fairness Doctrine." I have another word that starts with an "F" for both sides....
JMR
So Sarcasmo, do you you agree
May 20, 2007 - 07:13 ET by ArchConservativeSo Sarcasmo, do you you agree with the (un)Fairness Doctrine or not? If you want to be consistent then you have to admit that it is just as anti-free speech and you should be against it just as much.
"Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists."
- President George W Bush September 2001 speech to a joint session of Congress.
I'm fully consistent. No ce
May 20, 2007 - 07:18 ET by sarcasmoI'm fully consistent. No censorship should exist, period. Let markets decide instead of big government, whether it's Howard or Rush and whether it's the FCC or the Fairness Doctrine.
JMR
Well, we finally agree on som
May 20, 2007 - 07:22 ET by ArchConservativeWell, we finally agree on something. I hope you will fight against this with the rest of us.
"Will" implies I'
May 20, 2007 - 07:24 ET by sarcasmo"Will" implies I'm somehow late to the fight against government censors. I've been in it for decades, boy...
JMR
"BOY"??? I'm not yo
May 20, 2007 - 07:28 ET by ArchConservative"BOY"??? I'm not your "boy" Sarcasmo. I treat you with respect and you need to treat me the same damned way. Next time choose your words more carefully.
Questioning my patriotism a
May 20, 2007 - 07:32 ET by sarcasmoQuestioning my patriotism ain't treating me with respect, BOY! It's a 2 way street, so deal with it. I don't take kindly to jerks who don't know me questioning how much I love this country, and you got off easy with "boy" and "dimwit," in my book, but that's because you're not in reach. From me, you can expect the respect you deserve, not the respect you may want...
JMR
It's apparent that you cannot
May 20, 2007 - 07:50 ET by ArchConservativeIt's apparent that you cannot tell what race I am by just typing on the internet so I will assume that you don't understand the conotations of the word "boy" you racist. And if I got off "light", just use the BIG word, I've been called that before too.
I questioned your patriotism not just off-handedly but with arguments to back it up just as you used your arguments to back up your side. If you want to get "in reach" I'd be more than happy to do that to.
This whole site is dedicated to arguing and going back on forth on issues not calling someone out for a fight and throwing around racist statements like "boy". Let me know if you're white so I can call you some names. We could probably go all day. I've been in fights before and I'll do it again. No big deal to me.
"Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists."
- President George W Bush September 2001 speech to a joint session of Congress.
I called you a boy because yo
May 20, 2007 - 07:58 ET by sarcasmoI called you a boy because you're immature. I have no idea (and no care) what color you are, if you're gonna question my patriotism you're a jerk, a boy, and a dimwit. I stand by all 3 descriptions, and you didn't back up your arguments about my patriotism any better than you backed up your other BS statements about me somehow posting on Huffpo or Kos, and you know it. If you want a fight, get around me and claim I don't love this country, and I'll see what I can do for you. Boy.
JMR
Just another racist, liberal
May 20, 2007 - 08:03 ET by ArchConservativeJust another racist, liberal cracker who cannot take criticism for their view points and has to revert to name calling. Good for you.
"Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists."
- President George W Bush September 2001 speech to a joint session of Congress.
While sarc doesn't need me
May 20, 2007 - 08:08 ET by Jack BauerWhile sarc doesn't need me to leap to his defense, and while I do find his love of Ron Paul a tad unhealthy... come on... sarcasmo IS NOT A RACIST.
Okay, he's obsessive about his passions, but SO WHAT? That's a lib***l trick to call people racists on zero evidence.
He could have called you a yob. Look it up.
One thing's for certain around here...
May 20, 2007 - 08:12 ET by sarcasmoOne thing's for certain around here...It doesn't matter if you're Matthew Sheffield, if you question my patriotism it's likely I'm gonna call you things that don't please your mommy. The solution might be to argue with me logically -- as he claimed to do -- without questioning my patriotism, and maybe even offer an apology, but I doubt we'll be seeing THAT! This is, after all, the internet, and once I've admitted someone's full of crap for them, they're rarely in a mood to admit it again for themselves...But thanks for knowing me enough to know I'm not a racist.
JMR
I tried to be nice and tell h
May 20, 2007 - 08:14 ET by ArchConservativeI tried to be nice and tell him that he can call me whatever he wants except boy because of the conotation it brings up. But he refused and continues to use the word. If he wants to call me a dimwit, fine I don't care, but like I said in the last posts, don't use racist terminology towards me I won't use it towards you. And calling me a liberal is almost just as bad. But I forgive you Jack.
"Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists."
- President George W Bush September 2001 speech to a joint session of Congress.
Nope. "Boy" appar
May 20, 2007 - 08:17 ET by sarcasmoNope. "Boy" apparently is what gets under your skin, and since questioning my patriotism gets under MY skin because the 'argument' is so-damn-weak in my case, "Boy" it is!
JMR
arch, me laddie, I never ca
May 20, 2007 - 08:23 ET by Jack Bauerarch, me laddie, I never called you a lib***l, I just said it was a lib***l trick to call people racists under the slightest pretext.
I seriously don't follow your logic. Racism is singling out someone for less favorable treatment because of their race.
I can assure you Sarcasmo is an equal opportunity debater and uses rhetoric to its full benefit.
"I tried to be nice an
May 20, 2007 - 15:37 ET by ckc1227"I tried to be nice and tell him that he can call me whatever he wants except boy because of the conotation it brings up."
No offense, but if you allow the word "boy" to have that much power over you, you have bigger issues than dealing with Sarcasmo. The only "conotations" it brings up are the ones you allow.
Shhh! I'm just glad I stumb
May 20, 2007 - 21:07 ET by sarcasmoShhh! I'm just glad I stumbled upon something that annoys him as much as dimwit-boy annoyed me. Don't spoil the fun!
JMR
Dimwit, you've pegged the i
May 20, 2007 - 08:08 ET by sarcasmoDimwit, you've pegged the irony-meter, because YOU STARTED the name-calling by questioning my patriotism, and you're just surprised I won't take that kind of crap from the likes of you. But I'll continue to treat you with the respect you DESERVE, boy. And I still have no idea (or care) what color you are, despite your, uh, liberal use of the racism-bomb accusation. Let's see if ANYONE ELSE reading this conversation thinks I'm a racist, or thinks I give a crap what color your skin is, because I'll bet they all know the truth. I don't. Boy.
JMR
Sacasmo where in this thread
May 20, 2007 - 12:06 ET by James2306Sacasmo where in this thread did Arch ever question your patriotism and could you please provide a link to the Oprah thing that you are talking about so others may see it.
The hottest places in hell are oft reserved for those who in times of moral crisis remain neutral
I never said the boy did
May 20, 2007 - 19:56 ET by sarcasmoI never said the boy did it in this thread, but my disrespect for the cluelessness dimwit-boy displayed in questioning my patriotism transcends mere NB threads, obviously. That's just not something you do if you want even a vestige of respect from me, and I have no intention of tolerating it -- especially now that I have found a good way to get under dimwit-boy's skin, know what I mean?
This describes the Oprah thing, but the original transcript URL on Howard's site is now broken, however, the description should suffice, and even Ms. Malkin says:"For once, I agree with Stern, who points out a glaring regulatory double standard. Oprah's broadcast (on daytime network TV, accessible to children) was as indecent and titillating as anything Stern puts on the air. Why should she be allowed to hide behind the disingenuous guise of "education" while Stern faces a crackdown for vulgar entertainment?"
When both Michelle Malkin and sarcasmo call a certain situation "a double standard," as we both have, it should be enough for most folks here to just admit that the FCC had a censorious, political double standard in this case no matter how you feel about Mr. Stern's speech...
JMR
James
May 21, 2007 - 12:59 ET by SportPoliticsLet me help define the issue - lol - sarc went on his screaming flamefest when his "patriotism" was "questioned" by the other commenter saying "will" you get into the fight against censorship....
Ol' sarc the self aggrandizing jerk who is often wrong but can never admit it - felt a sting of ego deflation since the other fella wasn't aware of sarc's self proclaimed "decades long fight" against government censorship....
So, basically sarcy felt he was called unpatriotic because "boy" wasn't aware of sarc's "reputation that precedes him". Bow down and behold, the mighty one has been fighting for decades, and if you don't know it - you have called him unpatriotic !!!
I think it's a hoot when ANYONE goes into a snit about their "patriotism".
I've never understood it ( except that is another self inflating ego problem akin to any other ), and probably never will - except also in the light that they certainly always have a "big problem" with what the USA is currently.... and of course the arguments ensue about what it is supposed to be, what it should become, what is has become and shouldn't have, and on and on.
People who are "touchy" about their "patriotism" have that in common with eachother in my estimation - a big fat "issue" 24/7/365 with the USA, and most often, the USA IS NOT what it should be and is supposed to be according to them - in other words it is often "already destroyed" in their eyes.
Arch . . . Sarc is our Resi
May 20, 2007 - 08:09 ET by Free StinkerArch . . . Sarc is our Resident Libertarian, not a Liberal. At least, not in the way that word is used today.
Way to show real maturity by
May 20, 2007 - 09:18 ET by bretzysdudeWay to show real maturity by turning this into an emotional issue. That's all you liberals ever think about, isn't it?
arch-- I don't have a dog in this fight, but---
May 20, 2007 - 12:35 ET by misterbillarch-- I don't have a dog in this fight, but---the use of the word "boy" never had any racial tones to it in my experience. A word group of addresses included, chief, mac, pal, bud, boy and my least favorite, a combo, "buddy boy".
Racist comments exist mostly in the minds of victims and advocates of Political Correctness. If you want to call me boy, at my age I will, accept it as a compliment. You may also say, call me a Caucasian (or Negro, or Mongoloid) the misuse of the words because of ignorance on the part of the PC people is very frustrating or should I say "flustrating" (another misuse that irritates me no end). My entry into this fray is not to take sides, so that is all I have to say.
PS Lord, do I hate PC.
PPS-- I must add this as a classic example of PC
May 20, 2007 - 12:47 ET by misterbill"Racial intolerance, ignorance, and misplaced political correctness have cost a white mayoral aide his job in Washington, DC. And, as many of the other stories on Adversity.Net clearly illustrate, the "niggardly" controversy is only the tip of the "intolerance iceberg"."
Dictionary def of "niggardly"---
1.reluctant to give or spend; stingy; miserly.
2.meanly or ungenerously small or scanty: a niggardly tip to a waiter.
–adverb
So now we fire people because the audience does not have a good vocabulary????
If you want to see "bo
May 20, 2007 - 12:47 ET by lnthompIf you want to see "boy" used in a very racist way, and in a good movie to boot, rent "In the Heat of the Night". For laughs, and the same effect, rent "Blazing Saddles". I can assure you that there's no doubt how the white characters in the movie intend the word "boy" to be heard, when speaking to black characters.
Lee T.
U.S. Navy (ret.) / Vancouver, Washington
The history of the race, and each individual's experience, are thick with evidence that a truth is not hard to kill and that a lie told well is immortal.-- Mark Twain
lnthomp I saw the movie
May 20, 2007 - 13:00 ET by misterbilllnthomp I saw the movie and there is no doubt what the chief (Steiger) was trying to do. I never experienced it growing up in the north. Also as a young sailor in the south, I was called "boy" many times. I guess I am stupid, it never bothered me. I am not black so perhaps it was only a reference to my youth at the time.
Now that you have reminded me--I do remember (foggy) the use of the word in "blazing saddles".Damn, a lot of things got by me when I was younger.
I grew up in east Texas, wi
May 20, 2007 - 13:10 ET by lnthompI grew up in east Texas, with a mix of blacks, whites and hispanics (mostly Mexicans). We also had an influx of Vietnamese in the mid-to-late '70's.
I'm white. Our schools were integrated the year I entered 2nd grade, and my parents tried hard to not exhibit any racism they may have felt. I saw plenty of racism around me and made every effort to distance myself from it. It's hard for me to watch those movies, and some others that address the issue of racism... for me, hearing the 'n' word is like hearing fingernails on a chalkboard.
Lee T.
U.S. Navy (ret.) / Vancouver, Washington
The history of the race, and each individual's experience, are thick with evidence that a truth is not hard to kill and that a lie told well is immortal.-- Mark Twain
well -- here was my fun experience
May 20, 2007 - 13:38 ET by misterbillwell -- here was my fun experience. I grew up in a mostly Irish, Catholic environment. I never saw a black man (or any other race) until I was about 11 years old. I was called , wop, Guinea, dago and an assortment of other names. I was the only non-Irish boy in my class. Nonetheless, once they got used to me, I was one of them. It was a Catholic school and racial or ethnic insults were discouraged. (Spell that "ruler on the hand".) There was always a bully, but it did not amount to a lot over the years. My after school life was quite different--all white but Polish, Italian, Irish French and Scottish. God bless them all. When I lean back and think about those guys and the fun we had--I just feel the old glow inside. It overrides all the prejuduce and bigotry.
Olly Olly Oxen Free (All
May 20, 2007 - 13:58 ET byOlly Olly Oxen Free (All the other outs in free)
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
olly olly oxen free--
May 20, 2007 - 14:45 ET by misterbillolly olly oxen free--
went back two years ago to the 55th HS reunion. Small school, small class size. Most were still alive. It was only four hours, didn't get to spend time with most. It was a good day. The best part was staying at my HS and life friend, Jack's house and driving around the old neighborhood.
Perhaps I am overly sentimental in my dotage but the old memories do warm me and fill me with love.
Don't you think political spe
May 20, 2007 - 08:21 ET by NewsbusterbrownDon't you think political speech (which the 1st Amendment was created for) is much more important to support than what the FCC attacks? I'm with you in regard to the free market, but the silencing of political ideas is infinitely more dangerous to our country than silencing lewd or vulgar behavior.
The problem is in letting a
May 20, 2007 - 08:31 ET by sarcasmoThe problem is in letting anything but the free marketplace decide what's "lewd" or "vulgar," and it's especially-hard because the definitions of those terms change with the times. Is this copyright-spat item "lewd," "vulgar," or "political"??? Want to silence anything on your radio/TV/etc.?? There's this button which costs American taxpayers $0, called "off," and it's a feature of every electronic device. I trust it more than I trust huge-government agencies of any sort, due to long experience with the government.
JMR
Ah, the good old "off&
May 20, 2007 - 08:44 ET by Free StinkerAh, the good old "off" button. :-)
.
And to all the people who don't like Bill Maher, did you cancel HBO like I did?
If I had a one-cent tax reb
May 20, 2007 - 08:48 ET by sarcasmoIf I had a one-cent tax rebate for every time I've suggested that button instead of my taxes, I'd, uh, probably still pay too-high taxes, but I'd pay less! :) And your Bill Maher boycott is exactly the right way for people to get the media you want -- each time anyone spends money it's like a vote.
JMR
each time anyone spends money it's like a vote.
May 20, 2007 - 08:57 ET by Free Stinkereach time anyone spends money it's like a vote.
Dr. Williams, I presume? :-)
He said it better, I'm sure!J
May 20, 2007 - 09:07 ET by sarcasmoHe said it better, I'm sure!
JMR
I'm not disagreeing with you
May 20, 2007 - 08:52 ET by NewsbusterbrownI'm not disagreeing with you about an open market, but let's be honest here: do you think any of the Founding Fathers were thinking about Howard Stern (who I think is funny) when they wrote the 1st Amendment? I would say none of them would be in support of him. But silencing political speech? That's what they would be up in arms about (not that they were always consistent, as Thomas Jefferson at the turn-of-the 19th century would demonstrate :-).
I don't see any clear line
May 20, 2007 - 09:06 ET by sarcasmoI don't see any clear line between speech others call "political" and speech they call "indecent," though, and I don't trust Democrats or Republicans (or Libertarians, for that matter, if they somehow snagged power!) with the political power to make that distinction. I suspect the founders thought a lot more like we do than many folks believe -- the idea that they didn't think as much about sex or didn't use a wide variety of drugs to alter their states of awareness is strange to me, but it's commonly-accepted by others despite the plain facts of history. Would they find things like abolition, womens' rights, airplanes, and the existence of radio itself more interesting than Howard's show? Yes, probably, but I think they'd still not want it censored. IMO they would instead be appalled by the size and cost to taxpayers of the FCC and a wide variety of big-government agencies like it. I think they'd leave Howard alone, and join with libertarians like me to opposed the censorious agencies' very existence -- popular opinion be damned -- because of their small government principles.
JMR
An observation
May 20, 2007 - 08:45 ET by goldenthroatIs it any wonder why Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and others in the conservative broadcasting ranks continue to gain listenership while the idiots at Air America couldn't make enough money to buy a roll of toliet paper? Now their cronies in Congress have adopted the philosophy "If you can't beat 'em, take them off the air".
Or maybe it's the philosophy of "everyone is entitled to my opinion". Hmmm - sounds like something Shmillary or Osama Bama would say.
Liberal talk radio has been an pathetic failure and they still don't get it, do they?
Never dance on an empty stomach unless it's a liberal.
This will also hit FoxNews.
May 20, 2007 - 09:21 ET by jpm100This will also hit FoxNews. Most of their content is in a Talk format interspersed with news segments. CNN and the others wrap most of their content in the appearance of news.
And no, this won't cut both ways. Back when this bill was alive, the so-called "news" was exempt. It was one of the motivations to pretend to be neutral and objective.
In the few cases where they need a balancing presence, they will do what that did in the past. Find the biggest idiot, mumbler or freak to represent the Conservative viewpoint.
I agree jpm100
May 21, 2007 - 13:18 ET by SportPoliticsI agree jpm100. I see the left says their demcorat news agencies are "neutral and unbiased" by definition, by their very existence, and anything else like "fair and balanced" FoxNews is an arm of the republican party.
Rush it is said has claimed to be an entertainer - so the entertainer will be deemed political speech, except when it comes to things like "Comedy" - John Stewart show and The Colbert Report - those will be parody and comedy like SNL, and be of course untouchable because republicans "don't have a sense of humor".
I fully expect that, and more, in full Orwellian doctrinal appraoch, and find no reason to think the republicans can oppose the newsspeak since they have a massive crippling disadvantage already.
Don't forget the thousands of "music stations" that have thousands of far left DJ's that make their little Bush hate comments part of the regular daily anti-war , anti-republican, anti-conservative music interspersed with their little left wing comments. Those will be absolutely untouched as well, since they will never qualify as political - but instead be "entertainment".
Add onto that the entire Hollywood movie and TV show industry.
Just yesterday the cable and internet CEO's were in front of congress, including Marc Cuban , the YouTube guy and others, and a Republican congressperson spent a few minutes explaining that he can no longer watch the "Law and Order" tv series because it is constantly imbued with a left wing anti-republican storyline.
So, the libs have the big 3 alphabets that are 10 times the cable news Fox (minus CNN and MSNBC and whatever else insluding all the spanish channels)- MOST of the radio stations that play their lib hate war peacenick gay radio bash Bush stuff all day long, and the vast majority of Hollywood.
Not sure how to characterize the Sports channels, other than they certainly got rid of Rush Limbaugh very quickly - and had that "racist" baseball player blackballed. Can't think of a lib ever being banned for being a lib.
So, it's not like the left needs any help whatsoever - they already OWN almost ALL - including RADIO - because of the thousands of "music stations".
Oh sorry, I forgot "24" - the new "abhorrent republican" way to go at life - a Fox network production.
Also forgot the ABC CENSORED by the democrats in congress "movie" about slick willie and Sandy Berger and Richard Clarke and Albright's failure to kill Osama Bin Laden when they had "eyes on the target"....
Yep, so when it comes to ABC, CBS, NBC , the only time they get "censored" right now is when by amazing maneuvering and hard won fighting and on location film crewing - and endless real in person interviews and data, the TRUTH can be played - and it isn't "biased in favor of libs and democrats" -which is of course quite unacceptable - especially when it points to a convicted criminal like Berger still freah in the minds of Americans caught trying to "censor" the truth by stealing from the National Archives...
Yeah, so by my judgement, ABC, NBC, and CBS have been censored for the left and dems for a long, long, long time.
Their current false argument against it is paraded by the "sexed up intel" charges where the "media failed" before the war.. Well, anyone with a lick of common sense knows by now the Slick Willie crew said the very same thing, and so did everyone else, and the great unbiased news agencies can find not a single shred of data or words to the contrary - even to this very day...
But, it's still their "pro right wing bias" and "absolute failure of being fair and objective" - that they didn't expose a republican president as a liar and charlatan before a war that they know was a mistake and a charade and a crime and a failure.
LOL - The lie is so fat and so deep that nothing can explode it.
*waits patiently for NB's res
May 20, 2007 - 10:30 ET by Roger the Shrubber*waits patiently for NB's resident progressive, er, socialist trolls to arrive with the latest pro-fairness doctrine talking points to regurgitate here...*
Would this attack on free spe
May 20, 2007 - 11:02 ET byWould this attack on free speech be subject to a POTUS veto?
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
No veto will save us - sorry
May 20, 2007 - 20:50 ET by w0tmYou have to read the congressional record of the House last week then commentary by several not well known op-ed columnists but I think they are right that Nancy Pelosi is setting things up to bring back the Fairness Doctrine" as if it never ended. It takes a real stretch of credulity but the majority party gets to decide what is credible. This will not be a new law so George Bush will not be able to veto it. In fact, the way she is doing it, no one even has to vote! It can be reinstituted by House leadership fiat. Thus Democrats in swing districts will get to claim "I would have let the people speak if given the chance". Total BS of course but the voters will buy it. By then, opposing voices will be reduced to broadcasting on citizen's band radios sets.
We've seen our last free election. Why even go through the motions giving them an ounce of legitimacy? If the Fairness Doctrine and the very misguided illegal alien amnesty bill become law, we've lost. There is nothing to save us after that. One-party oligarchy with demagogues at the top will become our new system. At least the new owners of our country will do a complete U turn on national security. After they own our country, they will fight to protect what they own, to the total dismay of the anti-war wing of their party. That "wing" will be the first to be thrown overboard. Those people have the most to fear. We know who the "enemy within" is. They believe it is us. They will soon discover it is those they thought were on their side. Stalin, Castro and so many other dictators shot those closest to them when they came to power. They won't fear us. We know we've lost and have given up. Not so with the far-left anti-war wing of their party. They will be marginalized either peacefully or not. I'd give odds on the "or not". But we'll just be bystanders by then watching the winners decide who enjoys the spoils. By nature, it will not be the anti-war groups that comes out victorious.
Wish It Were So! -- Fairness Doctrine
May 20, 2007 - 12:01 ET by w0tmWish it were so! Reading the Fairness Doctrine law, even as it existed in 1988 ignoring what the Liberals would do to it today, congress sets up an "unbiased" committee to decide whether a TV or radio show is political and, if so, if it is does or does not contain enough from both sides to be considered its own equal time. With an extra paragraph, The Fairness Doctrine could easily be extended to the Internet. What type of "unbiased" citizens would today's Liberal Party (sorry, to me, the Democratic Party died in 1972) appoint to such a committee? I can think of hundreds of people who would be eager to serve and they all have media experience. Michael Moore, Walter Cronkite, Mike Wallace, Barbra Streisand and, and, and. They'd have an almost unlimited pool of "unbiased, fair and balanced" people to choose from. By a "work around" that Nancy Pelosi quietly set in motion last week (do NOT expect the media to cover it!), the law can be brought back without President Bush's signature. So we are not protected by his veto power. He can only veto new laws. Not ones declared by the house and senate as having never been taken out of law in the first place. A fine point of law but she can and will do it. She is not waiting for President Hillary. It will be sent to the Supreme Court but that will take years and Talk Radio and virtually all dissent will be permanently silenced in the meantime. By then they assume they'll have their own president. So this change is not coming in 2009 but could happen within months. You have to read the Congressional Record to learn of this. It will remain under the radar until the day they set up the committee and they tell the already decided upon conservative talk shows to either shut down or provide equal time.
The political tone of each program will be judgmental by this committee appointed by congress. To a Michael Moore-type, PBS would not be "fair". It would be too conservative. They would have to allow time for A.N.S.W.E.R. and other such groups.
There is an "end-run" coming and it is almost upon us. And no one has a clue (other than Nancy Pelosi, the Clintons and others like them). We will have every bit as much censorship as China does today and it will happen with breathtaking speed. Next will come deeming most anything political said by a conservative as "hate speech". Some of the "hate" laws already on the books can easily be applied to politics. That means jail for those who exercise their First Amendment Rights. The first nail in the coffin of Free Speech was McCain-Feingold. This will be the last nail before our First Amendment is buried. Once lost, it is gone for good.
The crazy rhetoric we laugh at as the rant of lunatics we read on DailyKOS and the like will become reality. We will continue to fool ourselves by saying "it can't happen here". They said that in Germany in the 20's and in other civilizations throughout history. "the Roman Empire is Eternal". No, it is dust. As we will be unless things change very soon.
**********************************
View http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaE98w1KZ-c to FINALLY understand why liberals think the way they do. This was the most informative 47 minutes I've ever spent. Please -- take the time to view it.
thanks ---- frightening possi
May 20, 2007 - 12:10 ET bythanks ---- frightening possibilities
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
Thompson/Hunter '08!
May 20, 2007 - 16:28 ET by bigtimerThompson/Hunter '08!
I like it---
May 20, 2007 - 16:44 ET by misterbillI like it---but then again anything that starts with Thompson--I like!
Hunters credentials are great too!
Back to the Future
May 20, 2007 - 16:38 ET by cruiserThe return of the so called Fairness Doctrine, combined with the new immigration bill will eventually result in one viable political party. Liberal / Democrats will be in control. They won't give up power again. The sad part is is that people wonder how the Nazi Party came to power in Germany. They did it legally, just like this. We are going back to the future.
You are 100% correct. But k
May 20, 2007 - 18:19 ET by Sonny LykosYou are 100% correct. But knowing how it happened before, it can be stopped before it's too late, but only via a revolution and assasinations. No one, absoultely no one is untouchable.
Think I'm being dramatic? Then also think about the consequences if they are allowed to create a legal dictatorship. The DNC has already become the new Socialist Party. One more step and kiss American good-bye.
Wait, I thought conservatives
May 20, 2007 - 18:24 ET by ferrarimanf355Wait, I thought conservatives were in favor of the Fairness Doctrine as a way to counter the so-called liberal viewpoints until Regan said that it was bad. Now, conservatives are against it because of fears that it would require people to get the other side of the debate. Sheesh, get your opinion straight...
Uzumaki/Ayanami '08. Because a ninja and an Eva pilot can govern the nation better that what we have now...
Why don't you just worry abou
May 20, 2007 - 18:27 ET by BlondeWhy don't you just worry about your own side of the fence there, fella. We don't need you to tell us what our viewpoint is....obviously. You've got it all bollixed up, as usual.
ferr,You may want to read thi
May 20, 2007 - 18:28 ET by bigtimerferr,
You may want to read this.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0507/4038.html
Wait, I thought... Ok, that w
May 20, 2007 - 18:33 ET by PeskyDaneWait, I thought... Ok, that was your first mistake. Go back to feeling - its your forte. Please provide a link or a reference to an article written by a well known conservative praising the fairness doctrine. Your mom doesn't get back from evening services for another hour or so. That means you have time to do some research, post it, erase your electronic footprints, and turn off the machine to let the circuits cool down. So when she gets home and feels the monitor, she won't know that you were using the good computer again.
ferrarimanf355, Political di
May 20, 2007 - 18:36 ET by Sonny Lykosferrarimanf355, Political discourse regardless of the media source is no different than any other aspect of our lives. It's a simple fact of suply and demand. Air America dies becasue there was not a sufficient demand to justify advertisers. Retail markets, the stock market, financial funds, etc. all work, or rather live or die via that basic economic fact - supply or demand.
Imagine of the federal government passed a law stating that in the future, in every GMC ad for it's cars and truck, must also contain ads for Ford, Chrysler, etc. Imagine if every ad for Sony had to contain ads for every other TV manufacturer.
What if for every man a woman accepted a date, she also had to accept a date with men she disliked.
However, perhaps that is just too simplistic for you to grasp. It's either that, or you are simply a liar.
Wait, I thoughtWell, there'
May 20, 2007 - 19:27 ET by Jack BauerWell, there's many a slip twixt thought and fact. Something you prove with every post.
To call your "argument" a strawman, is an insult to strawmen everywhere. To say nothing of tin men and cowardly lions.
I am puzzled. It might be tha
May 20, 2007 - 19:58 ET by Roger the ShrubberI am puzzled. It might be that, had Miatagirl bothered to do some research, she would have found that it was during the Reagan administration that a Democrat(ic)-run House and Senate tried to get the Fairness Doctrine reinstated in 1987, but Reagan vetoed it. Your Socialist, er, Progressive, er, Democrat(ic) comrades tried again in 1991, but failed.
Sorry, Sparky, you are truly a dumbass. If you had even took a moment to consult Wikipedia, you might have spared yourself the shame of being taken to the woodshed by a dumb, redneck neocon hatemonger. Thank you. You make my job easy.
You may go now.
Stalin Deja Vu? (Un)Fairness Doctrine coming VERY soon
May 20, 2007 - 20:19 ET by w0tmStalin said: "Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything".
Everyone should read the original Fairness Doctrine. To hear someone like Dennis Kucinich defend the Fairness Doctrine as "leveling the playing field" is down right scary. To him, our media is controlled by the far right and "progressives" have no medium in America to make their beliefs known.
The slope is indeed slippery. Contrary to opinions expresses thus far on this topic, I must respectfully disagree. They couldn't pick a more opportune time to restart Air America. No one seems to be noticing that Nancy Pelosi is setting things up to use a far fetched reading of the rules (but the majority gets to decide what is "far fetched") to restart the Fairness Doctrine as if it never ended. That way, they avoid a sure presidential veto. It would immediately go to the courts but, in the meantime, it will be the law of the land until, or if, the Supreme Court rules against Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. This is not going to wait until, or if, the election of President Hillary occurs. It is coming much sooner. Air America will be the "opposing view" for Rush Limbaugh. Radio stations won't be able to afford much more "opposing view" time for other conservative talk shows. According to the Fairness Doctrine as written, congress appoints a committee of bi-partisan individuals to rule on whether or not a talk show is political or not and, if so, if it is "balanced". The fine print says congress as a whole (the majority) appoints the individuals. NOT each party selecting their members of the committee. So the majority (Democrats) get to select all of the members of what will be, in effect, a national media censorship committee who will be unelected and unaccountable to anyone other than those who appointed them. They decide when a program is finally "balanced" with penalties beginning with suspension of the program. Fines and jail time are allowed as punishment as the law already reads. The "unbiased" committee is given almost unlimited discretion to do whatever they like. New laws by unelected bureaucrats. It happens every day now so why not with this committee? Hate speech laws that were passed with well meaning intentions by some but with knowledge of what they were really meant for long term by the army of George Soros will silence conservatives at the point of a gun or, at the least, a jail cell door closing behind you. Laws are never named to identify their true goals. If anything, the names are often just the opposite. Any law with the word "reform, enhancement, fair or rights" in the title is just the opposite. You can count on it as being Newspeak of "1984".
Air America will soon be guaranteed airtime on a thousand plus stations. How many other liberal political talk shows are there to fill the 12-hour void that is coming soon? How many listeners will there be? Doesn't matter. Many advertisers will throw money at them just as the DNC treasury is growing rapidly today from those who just want to side with the winning side. Shame on them but it's reality. Unless we ever reach the state of North Korea (even I can't fathom that) where all radios have no tuning knob and are tuned to the government radio channel plus audio is trumpeted in public and private places 24 hours a day. Shades of Big Brother in "1984" except set in an Asian country.
Are we witnessing the end of our First Amendment and, perhaps, the Second Amendment too? Lose those and the others aren't worth the paper they're written on.
A year from now, Air America will be a fixture of our media. It, PBS and NPR will dominate. Free Speech does not die easily or is it possible to bottle it up to satisfy today's versions of demagogues who have destroyed great and free civilizations throughout history. All because some people really, truly believe they knew better than the "masses". They become frustrated enough if they don't get their way democratically, they do so by any means possible. Ask any of them. Every single one will respond, "you'll thank me some day". No, their names will go down on the dark side of the ledger of history. We'll all be dead by then. Our children and our children's children will reap the whirlwind. the best years of our country are behind us and the greatest civilization that ever existed is nearing midnight. How many centuries will this new Dark Ages last before mankind again claws itself out of misery and despair? Why did it have to be? Why do so few notice today how close we are to a great abyss and why do even fewer seem to care?
Air America will be financially successful with a per listener cost of thousands of dollars. It reminds me of the saying "first they came for the -- ". You've all heard it. In this case, first they came for the Talk Shows. The Internet will not be far behind. China has proven how technologically simple it is to censor the Internet. Will we be reduced to hand written protest notes containing the truth furtively passed from one person to another?
"It Can't Happen Here" has been said sooo many times throughout history. Always eventually proven wrong. It CAN Happen Here. Soon, very soon.
W0TMFilibuster anyone?Supreme
May 20, 2007 - 20:30 ET byW0TM
Filibuster anyone?
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
No chance (I think)
May 20, 2007 - 23:23 ET by w0tmFrom what I read of what she and others are quietly putting together, there will be no chance for a filibuster. The speaker just declares the law was in effect all these years but will now be enforced. Many fine points of law. But that trumps all until it goes through the courts, which would take years. Legislation by fiat. What they've been after for years. The only chance the Republicans would have to stop this would be to filibuster all bills and shut down government. That would include funding for our troops. Pelosi has opponents in checkmate. Sad but true. I'm not a lawyer but have read a lot of constitutional law. It seems to me President Bush could halt the implimentation of the law by emergency executive order under the War Powers Act and/or the Patriot Act. Would he do that? The MSM would rip him to shreads but they're doing it already.
Will Gonzales enforce?Supreme
May 20, 2007 - 23:29 ET byWill Gonzales enforce?
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
Depends on if he remembers an
May 20, 2007 - 23:32 ET by balboaDepends on if he remembers any of it later.
Off topic and sour grapes cuz
May 20, 2007 - 23:37 ET byOff topic and sour grapes cuz he twarted the witch hunt
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
Indeed
May 20, 2007 - 23:40 ET by Mr. BishopBalboa is well aware of that as well. This discussion was already had, and the information was already provided for him.
"Stop global warming! Asphyxiate a liberal!" - Show us how far you're willing to go to stop "global warming"
Dude... lighten up..
Ok so Balboa
May 21, 2007 - 13:48 ET by SportPoliticsOk, so Balboa actually pretended to not remember, or maybe he didn't remember, while he made up a fantasy about a republican AG "not remembering in the future".
I guess that's perfected liberalism.
Being a perfect idiot liar hypocrit, carried out to an infinite degree.
It is truly an amazing skill.
Oh SP, you crazy knucklehea
May 21, 2007 - 13:53 ET by balboaOh SP, you crazy knucklehead you!
Wow Balboa
May 21, 2007 - 13:59 ET by SportPoliticsWow Balboa, you did again, just that quickly.
lol - You cannot help yourself. UR owned. ( not by me)
I am owned, by your magical
May 21, 2007 - 14:08 ET by balboaI am owned, by your magical charm.
I gotta give this one to Ba
May 20, 2007 - 23:45 ET by Free StinkerI gotta give this one to Bal. It was a little funny.
May 21, 2007 - 00:01 ET by
That's fine i owe Bal one fro
May 21, 2007 - 00:02 ET byThat's fine i owe Bal one from Friday with my "irrelevant" quipe when i shoud have engaged the issue
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
Fairness Doctrine maneuver will backfire
May 21, 2007 - 04:22 ET by Parker1227I hope the Dems try it. Any Fairness Doctrine maneuvers by Pelosi and Kucinich (to take down conservative talk radio) would backfire big time. It would energize conservatives, who are in disarray right now, and provide a focus to bring out the vote in '08.
Besides, only the mentally stunted would deny that the Dems can count on ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, PBS and NPR to carry their water about 95% of the time.
Not the only thing in this
May 21, 2007 - 04:36 ET by sarcasmoNot the only thing in this thread that's backfired, big-time (see my rebuff to dimwit-boy above).
JMR
I'm wondering Parker1227
May 21, 2007 - 13:55 ET by SportPoliticsI'm wondering Parker1227, would that mean the New York Times would have to have two editorial pages, their regular one, and one written up by any of the hated jewish zio neocons ?
I kind of doubt it.
It seems to me that "public airwaves" goes right along with "publicly funded schools and Universities".
Will the libs offer their doctrine for all the classrooms ?
Of course not.
It's a bad idea, since they obviously already control the dissemination of information in the 90% + range.
The Fox Network already has shown how it is to be done. It seems to me that deep pocketed republicans ( if there are any left in the USA - which I'm not convinced of ) need to make their market moves.
I'd appreciate another "Hollywood" run by republicans, in some state other than California. They need to start up another entertainment group that rejects the current Oscars and Film Institutes and all the rest of it, start one from scratch.